The Napster settlement has been bothering me a lot,
especially since it sets absolutely no precedent. A single
music company agreed to drop a suit. Great. What if on the
new SuperNapsterPayPerDownload service some kiddie starts
trading music from different labels than BMG, and those
other labels (which might be small and independent) for some
reason do not want their music distributed in this way? Is
it OK just becuase Big Business is behind the pay service?
BMG will get money from the new Napster service, but small
independent labels will most likely not.

This is depressing because many had hoped the Napster case
would clarify this confusing aspect of copyright law. As far
as current copyright law stands, I see no reason why an
independent label could not sue Napster/BMG and have just as
large a case as the RIAA did.

What was settled was not settled between all parties that
had claim to the money that "Napster had taken away from
them". All that happened was that one of the larger parties
got what they wanted. This does not clarify anything and
does not solve any problems that other companies claim they
had. If smaller record companies sue, do they have a chance?

I am also unhappy about the distinction that seems to be
arising between the legalities of a non-pay service versus
those of a costly service. If Napster was aiding people in
piracy when it was public, why will it be any different when
it becomes an exclusive club of piracy? Audio that BMG does
not hold the copyright to still will be traded. Many
companies, and even people blamed Napster for facilitating
this piracy, and therefore being liable for it. Once Napster
comes up from the underground, how will it be any different?
If I record farting noises, sell CD's of them, and they get
put on Napster, can I sue Napster? Well, this was basically
what companies were doing to Napster before the BMG deal.

The involvement of Big Business should not change the
percieved or real legality of a service